DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[southsider2k5]

Both made mistakes, but McGovern was just honest about his intentions and failed to moderate himself at all.

 

On the other hand, Mondale started out his general election bid by promising to raise taxes. Whoops.

 

FWIW, McG has also endorsed Hill.

 

[Texsox]

The two first families of American politics are the Bushs and Clintons. Mainstream politicos default to those candidates. We saw that eight years ago.

[NorthSideSox72]

Interesting story on the accuracy of polls 1 year before elections for the Presidency. Short version of the story: for Dems, the person leading 1 year out almost never wins the nomination. For the GOP, the leader 1 year out almost always does.

 

[Balta1701]

Borat endorses Obama

Q: Who do you favor for President in the United States?

 

A: "I cannot believe that it possible a woman can become Premier of US and A - in Kazakhstan, we say that to give a woman power, is like to give a monkey a gun - very dangerous. We do not give monkeys guns any more in Kazakhstan ever since the Astana Zoo massacre of 2003 when Torkin the orang-utan shoot 17 schoolchildrens. I personal would like the basketball player, Barak Obamas to be Premier."

[NorthSideSox72]

Two new state-specific polls released today: Zogby in Iowa, Rasmussen in NH. Both show Clinton's lead shrinking, and both showing Obama being the biggest gainer of those points.

 

The Iowa poll,which was this in August:

 

Clinton 30%

Edwards 23%

Obama 19%

Richardson 10%

 

Is now this:

 

Clinton 28% (-2)

Obama 25% (+6)

Edwards 21% (-2)

Richardson 9% (-1)

 

In NH, the Rasmussen poll, back before the most recent debate looked like this:

 

Clinton 38%

Obama 22%

Edwards 14%

Richardson 7%

 

Now it looks like this:

 

Clinton 34% (-4)

Obama 24% (+2)

Edwards 15% (+1)

Richardson 8% (+1)

 

As the gap continues to close, I think that Mr. Richardson's phone will be ringing off the hook around X-Mas and New Years' with VP offers from the top 3. As Rex said, I think he has the option to play king-maker. The other three are that close.

 

[mr_genius]

Obama needs to win Iowa. If Clinton does, she has the Dem nomination locked up IMO.

[Chet Lemon]

Gov. Strickland (D-OH) endorses Hillary

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j-1cC5W...sOOG0wD8SQ92FG0

[southsider2k5]

John Edwards, suicide campaigner?

 

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011305.php

 

Wednesday :: Nov 7, 2007

Does Edwards Campaign Have Ulterior Motives?

 

by Jeff Dinelli

I love a good conspiracy theory, especially when it has to do with national politics. I was just reading Daily Kos and Alegre wrote a piece that really got me thinking. Right now John Edwards is attacking Hillary Clinton harder than any Republican would, with accusations of talking out of both sides of her mouth and flip-flopping (echoes of Bush attacks on Kerry) and being less-than-honest on her plans for the Middle East. Latest polls show Edwards falling in Iowa polls, and Obama rising. Is there a connection?

 

Only six months ago advisor Joe Trippi joined the Edwards campaign, and the argument could be made this new pitbull strategy for Edwards has at least a little to do with Trippi's presence. In 2004 Trippi worked for then-frontrunner Howard Dean, who engaged in a bloody battle with Dick Gephardt while John Kerry slipped past the both of them. According to Alegre's source close to Dean, Trippi couldn't stand Edwards in '04, thought he was a doubletalker who could never win. This source speaks for a lot of campaign observers who are wondering right now why Edwards would dare go so nasty in a state that abhors negative campaigns, reflected in his recent slide.

 

Here's the catch: Trippi is close friends with Obama advisor David Axlerod. The theory goes something like this: Axlerod and Trippi decide Edwards can't possibly win, so Axlerod sends Trippi to Edwards' campaign to put on a full-blown attack, and like a suicide bomber, Edwards blows up his own campaign, dragging Hillary down in the process with a rallying cry of "Hillary Must Not Win."

 

Hey, stranger things have happened. I'm jumping on board with Alegre here. What do you think?

[Mplssoxfan]

John Edwards, suicide campaigner?

 

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011305.php

Hang on just a sec, my Reynolds Wrap ran out.

[Balta1701]

Not sure which thread to put this into, but I found it interesting.

 

An analysis of the level of diversity amongst high-level campaign staffers for each major campaign (It seems you need a subscription to get to the raw data about what level they chose to draw the dividing line at).

 

 

Link where I grabbed this from.

[NorthSideSox72]

Not sure which thread to put this into, but I found it interesting.

 

An analysis of the level of diversity amongst high-level campaign staffers for each major campaign (It seems you need a subscription to get to the raw data about what level they chose to draw the dividing line at).

 

 

Link where I grabbed this from.

Where are the other GOP'ers?

 

And I am amazed there is even that one AmerInd in there.

 

[Balta1701]

Where are the other GOP'ers?

 

And I am amazed there is even that one AmerInd in there.

According to the study, the GOP candidates were unwilling to provide the information at all, so the group sort of had to dig a lot harder to get that info, presumably by getting the names of the people and investigating their backgrounds. It might well be that for the smaller candidates/Huckabee they just got lazy or just couldn't get the info, as I said, I really don't know who DiversityInc is and I can't get at the raw data without a subscription.

 

Actually, scratch that, I could get a subscription, but I have office hours starting in another room in 30 seconds and will do so this evening if I have time.

[mr_genius]

Not sure which thread to put this into, but I found it interesting.

 

An analysis of the level of diversity amongst high-level campaign staffers for each major campaign

 

 

pfft, whetever. if there were more minorities you would be calling them phonies. what, GW Bush is good because he has minorities in high level positions?

 

[BigSqwert]

pfft, whetever. if there were more minorities you would be calling them phonies. what, GW Bush is good because he has minorities in high level positions?

Well if I were black I would wonder why I would ever think of voting for Guiliani.

 

EDIT: I guess as a white person I wonder the same thing.

Edited November 10, 2007 by BigSqwert

[mr_genius]

Well if I were black I would wonder why I would ever think of voting for Guiliani.

 

EDIT: I guess as a white person I wonder the same thing.

 

 

I doubt Giulinani is counting on the black vote. If he is he is gonna lose for sure

 

I wonder why anyone would vote for Hillary Clinton, but I'm sure lots of people will.

[BigSqwert]

I doubt Giulinani is counting on the black vote.

That's what bothers me though.

 

"I won't even try to do something for the minorities. Heck, I don't even want any of them working with/for me."

 

That's why so many people look at the Republican party as a party of old, rich white men.

[mr_genius]

That's what bothers me though.

 

"I won't even try to do something for the minorities. Heck, I don't even want any of them working with/for me."

 

That's why so many people look at the Republican party as a party of old, rich white men.

 

Well, the GOP has put people of color in higher government positions than the Dems have.

 

But I guess the GOP doesn't have a platform that appeals to a lot of African Americans. If a community automatically votes 90% Dem every election, the other party is going to consider those votes gone and try to appeal to voters more likely to punch their ticket. The Dems do the same thing, they pretty much don't even try to appeal some of the very conservative portions of the population and I can understand why. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to be a party that gives everyone what they want.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's what bothers me though.

 

"I won't even try to do something for the minorities. Heck, I don't even want any of them working with/for me."

 

That's why so many people look at the Republican party as a party of old, rich white men.

I don't think any candidate should ever "try to do something for minorities", in terms of hiring. I'd want them to hire the best people for the given job. The only jobs where your race is important, I suppose, is if the job itself was race-related, like marketing segment campaign work or diversity type roles. Other than that, get the best person. if you do that, you'll likely end up with a diverse group anyway.

 

[BigSqwert]

I don't think any candidate should ever "try to do something for minorities", in terms of hiring. I'd want them to hire the best people for the given job. The only jobs where your race is important, I suppose, is if the job itself was race-related, like marketing segment campaign work or diversity type roles. Other than that, get the best person. if you do that, you'll likely end up with a diverse group anyway.

How do you explain Guiliani's 100% white campaign staff?

[NorthSideSox72]

How do you explain Guiliani's 100% white campaign staff?

I don't even know the sample size. Could be chance, could be that Giuliani tends to hang out with the suit and tie crowd that tends to be lilly white... I don't think its because he in the klan or anything.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Check out the graphs of the polls over time for Iowa and New Hampshire. Note the trends...

 

In Iowa:

 

--Clinton wavering but generally up

--Obama gradually gaining

--Edwards gradually plummeting

--Richardson climbed to 10% or so but is now stagnant there

 

In NH:

 

--Clinton was stagnant, then up, now stagnating again

--Obama up and down, lately up

--Edwards steady to downward recently

--Richardson same as Iowa - jumped to 10-ish, now steady

 

Obama needs more traction to catch Clinton. Unless this dirt on her starts to really effect her standing, Obama needs a good run. But notice how Edwards falls match Obama's gains. I think they are battling for the same crowd. If one of those two drops out, the other will probably see enormous gains, probably enough to pass Clinton.

 

[mr_genius]

You guys hear about the Clinton campaign planting people in audiences to ask certain questions to her? Reminds of that phony press conference so many people were freaking out about lol

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

You guys hear about the Clinton campaign planting people in audiences to ask certain questions to her? Reminds of that phony press conference so many people were freaking out about lol

She gets more and more like Bush every day.

 

[YASNY]

She gets more and more like Bush every day.

 

To be fair, the question was planted, not the person. Also, supposedly, Clinton did not have any idea that she was calling on someone that had gotten a planted question ... though I would guess that her staffers made sure the person they planted the question with got to the microphone. In addition, apparently, planted questions are a common occurance during pre-primary and primary season. However, the problem Clinton faces is that Iowans, in general, do not go for this kind of stuff. This has the potential to derail her in Iowa. It all depends on how well they deal with crisis management. Iowa and New Hampshire can set the tone during the primary run, so this could be a major screw up. That being said, one of her bigwig staffers has siad that this will not happen again, fwiw.

Edited November 10, 2007 by YASNY

[Rex Kickass]

Planted questions are a common occurrence.

 

The reason people were getting up in arms in 2004 may have had something to do with the Loyalty Oaths that attendees were often required to send, and the general lack of ability to attend an event if you even wore a button advertising your preference for another candidate.